Rossi: Litigation to Last ‘at Least One Year’

[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/14/rossi-litigation-to-last-at-least-one-year/']If anyone is hoping for a speedy conclusion to the Rossi v. Darden et al court proceedings, Andrea Rossi doesn’t share that expectation. On the Journal of Nuclear Physics today he was asked how long he though the litigation would last, and his response was “at least one year”. The proceedings have become more complex […][/feedquote]

Only slightly related point — seems both Leonardo and IH have submitted a joint request for confidentiality for the discovery process, where documents are presumed confidential unless a challenge is made. The request was approved by the magistrate. We may never see Penon's report, as some have been cautioning.

Doc. 67, Judge Altonaga's order on the motion to strike, is now available. Some of the affirmative defenses made it through and some were stricken. I do not have time right now to try to sift through the details.

The "escape hatches in language" are simply a consequence of the world we live in. That Rossi's stuff never works cannot in principle ever be proven. That Rossi's stuff does not work when IH test it to the limit of their test accuracy is all they can know, and that is not the same thing.

Unlike Rossi, who often makes grandiose claims with no relation to reality, IH seem to be careful that what they say should be strictly the truth and nothing but the truth.

The issue in the suits is not if it works or not. It is about 1) where the agreed requirements fulfilled (timing, prior agreements before testing, written approval of testers,.....) and 2) did Rossi actually transfer the technology to IH so that they could get results. The first point is locked up in legal limbo. My gut feeling of the second is that Rossi did not have the levels of heat he claimed (if any) within a timely set up and with out his interference during testing and he certainly did not transfer the IP so others can use it.

I definitely think that LENR is "real" but do not believe Rossi has a commercially viable system that he transferred to IH. If he did, I am sure that IH would be using it and gearing up for commercialization. We would see engineering and manufacturing efforts.

No, they don't, which is precisely why there has been so much intrigue in the community surrounding those statements.

There is no intrigue. Only stupidity. I.H. very clearly stated the reasons why Rossi's test could not have worked, and why it was blatant fraud, in Exhibit 5. Rossi's own data shows that every claim in Exhibit 5 is correct. There are only two groups of people who disagree:

1. Those who are too stupid to see that the observers in Rossi's warehouse would be cooked to death if this were true.

2. Those who do not believe Exhibit 5, and who do not believe me when I say Rossi's data proves everything claimed in Exhibit 5.

If you want to say these two groups are engaged in "intrigue" then okay, you can call it that. I say it is merely inane stupidity, wishful thinking, or promoting fraud -- perhaps in exchange for a bribe from Rossi. I expect the people who yowl about "FUD" are paid by Rossi. They accuse others of this because they themselves are engaged in it, and they assume the rest of us also live in a sewer.

The issue in the suits is not if it works or not. It is about 1) where the agreed requirements fulfilled (timing, prior agreements before testing, written approval of testers,.....) and 2) did Rossi actually transfer the technology to IH so that they could get results. The first point is locked up in legal limbo.

No, it is not locked up. Exhibit 5 describes Rossi's data almost as completely as Rossi's own data tables. There are only a few details left to fill in. I uploaded some simulated data showing what I mean by that. It shows you everything Rossi himself recorded, plus the fake data he stuffed into the tables. Exhibit 5 tells you everything there is to know about the test, and everything you need to see that it was an out-and-out ridiculous, blatant fraud. Rossi did not even try to make it convincing.

If you do not believe I.H. and you do not believe me when I write this, you will say say "it may have worked" or "it did work." If you believe us then let make it clear that the inescapable conclusion from this data is that it did not work; it could not have worked; and it did not begin to deceive any experienced person who saw the physical experiment or the data.